News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Loosening Interstate standards to designate more as one

Started by Zeffy, June 20, 2015, 05:46:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Zeffy

(Sorry for the cryptic title...)

I was thinking about how Interstate standards are pretty strict, and they make it so a lot of freeways have to receive renovations and upgrades for them to become Interstate worthy.

But what if we loosened those standards a bit? Obviously the road would still have to be a fully limited access roadway (*cough I-180 *cough*), but what if, for example, the shoulder width didn't matter?

I'm not saying this so we can get more Interstates in the system, either. I'm questioning if money could be saved on converting existing freeways that aren't exactly Interstate standard into Interstates (whether they be 2di or 3di), versus the risk to motorists on skipping some of these upgrades. Shoulder-width, for example, seems to have no problem being substandard in areas like Chester, Pennsylvania, which has a very narrow shoulder (and is EXTREMELY close to residential properties!) but I'm pretty positive nothing bad has happened because of it.

Your thoughts?
Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders


noelbotevera

Pretty solid concept, though I'd like to point out some things....

Shoulder width needs to fit at least one car, because if there is no median, the shoulder is your backup breakdown lane. That's why shoulder width is needed. Shoulder width also has to be wide to avoid collisions with broken-down cars.

Rothman

I know NYSDOT has mulled this over time and time again when it has come to the NY 17/I-86 conversion.  At one point, I did hear one official consider just making NY 17 "look" like an interstate because of the incredible cost of getting NY 17 to Interstate standards, especially in Region 8 (Hudson Valley).

Then again, as leadership changes, priorities change.  The conversion was pushed by some commissioners and back-burnered by others, IMHO.  There was one story floating around that a previous commissioner was driving down NY 17 around the time of the Parksville project and the commissioner's reaction was, "Why are we doing this again?"

Although I suppose amongst us roadgeeks that we'd love more interstate mileage out there, there's actually a lot of nuances and influences on the decisions that are made to either charge ahead with the conversion or not.  Cost is not necessarily the biggest obstacle.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

briantroutman

Quote from: Zeffy on June 20, 2015, 05:46:32 PM
Your thoughts?

Could you give us an example of a route you had in mind?

I posted some news about an update to the CSVT project in Selinsgrove, and that got me thinking about a semi-related topic.

Take I-83, for example. I-83 is the de-facto replacement for former US 111 and the Susquehanna Trail. As numerous fictional highways threads and roadgeek sites have mentioned, there are some compelling arguments for extending I-83 northward via the current US 15 corridor, perhaps as far as Rochester.

But even after (if) the CSVT is completed around 2024, there will still be that pesky 29-mile gap between the Clarks Ferry Bridge and the end of the current freeway south of Selinsgrove–29 lousy miles out of what would otherwise be 347 continuous miles of freeway between Fayette Street in Baltimore and I-590 in Rochester. And yet the semi-limited access configuration between Amity Hall and Port Treverton, with no stop signs or traffic signals and very little turning traffic, serves the corridor well enough.

While I wouldn't be in favor of slapping standard Interstate shields on that section of 11/15, I think there is merit to having some kind of sub-Interstate shield (perhaps a hollow Interstate outline without the colors or the word "INTERSTATE" ) to bridge the numerical designation between sections of Interstate-quality freeway. And I don't think a state route marker is the answer, either. The marker should subconsciously suggest to the user: "You're following the I-83 corridor, but you're not getting an Interstate-standard experience in this section."  (Yes, I realize care is needed to avoid confusion with the Business shields.) If and when the gaps are closed through new construction or reconfiguration of the existing road, standard I shields would go up.

I could imagine this being used on an extended I-83, I-86, I-9 (CA 99), and maybe elsewhere.

Maybe something like this...

jakeroot

Quote from: Zeffy on June 20, 2015, 05:46:32 PM
I'm not saying this so we can get more Interstates in the system, either.

What's the point of loosening design standards if you don't plan to add more Interstates? I don't like over-regulation, by any means, but it shouldn't be as cut and dry as having two lanes in each direction with grade-separated interchanges. We need to have standards. People should be able to ride on an Interstate, and expect long, sweeping corners, a standard lane width, large shoulders, and so on.

iBallasticwolf2

I don't see the point in not following design standards at all. It would reduce safety. I could see it as a tempoarary fix until the road is finished being upgraded to standards. Or if the road has to be grandfathered.
Only two things are infinite in this world, stupidity, and I-75 construction

hbelkins

As I've said many times before, the Kentucky parkways are a perfect example. We're having to spend millions of dollars for upgrades on limited-access freeways that are in better shape design-wise than a lot of roads that already have an Interstate shield (I'm looking at you, PA Turnpike and I-70 between Washington and New Stanton).

Another good example is US 19/23 between Asheville and Mars Hill. I don't see any reason it can't be signed as I-26 right now.

If the general public can't tell the difference between an Interstate freeway and a non-Interstate freeway, then by all means, designate it as an Interstate if it makes sense.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Rothman

Quote from: hbelkins on June 20, 2015, 10:12:27 PM
As I've said many times before, the Kentucky parkways are a perfect example. We're having to spend millions of dollars for upgrades on limited-access freeways that are in better shape design-wise than a lot of roads that already have an Interstate shield (I'm looking at you, PA Turnpike and I-70 between Washington and New Stanton).


Good to hear that it's not just NY's FHWA Division Office that's being a stickler about this stuff. :D
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

bugo

This idea is fucking retarded. What's next, slapping Interstate shields on one lane National Forest gravel roads

BigRedDog

Quote from: bugo on June 20, 2015, 10:20:36 PM
This idea is fucking retarded. What's next, slapping Interstate shields on one lane National Forest gravel roads

Well, I mean, it was suggested as loosening standards "a bit" - not to have no standards whatsoever. :poke:

Plus, I don't think one lane National Forest roads have any shoulder at all, do they?  :bigass:

Zeffy

Quote from: hbelkins on June 20, 2015, 10:12:27 PM
As I've said many times before, the Kentucky parkways are a perfect example. We're having to spend millions of dollars for upgrades on limited-access freeways that are in better shape design-wise than a lot of roads that already have an Interstate shield (I'm looking at you, PA Turnpike and I-70 between Washington and New Stanton).

Exactly. I've looked at Kentucky's parkways that are slated to be designated as I-69 and I don't really see a need to have to upgrade them - they look fine to me as-is as an Interstate road.

Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders

Mr. Matté

When I was briefly doing North Carolina highway maps on Wikipedia, I noticed that sections of I-73/I-74 barely have any shoulder but the whole reason I-26 can't be continuous is pretty much due to one interchange in Asheville. Why do some roads get "grandfathered in" (like the former example in frickin' 2013) while others have to wait for expensive upgrades?

jakeroot

Quote from: Zeffy on June 20, 2015, 11:28:52 PM
they look fine to me as-is as an Interstate road.

No doubt they look fine, but operation-wise, they're most likely substandard. Looks can be deceiving.

Quote from: hbelkins on June 20, 2015, 10:12:27 PM
As I've said many times before, the Kentucky parkways are a perfect example. We're having to spend millions of dollars for upgrades on limited-access freeways that are in better shape design-wise than a lot of roads that already have an Interstate shield (I'm looking at you, PA Turnpike and I-70 between Washington and New Stanton).

I'm not familiar with Kentucky ... do you mind very briefly listing the changes being made to the parkways to meet Interstate standards? I assume basic modifications such as shoulder and lane width changes, but are there others?

Rothman

Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Molandfreak

There are terribly substandard freeways all throughout the system, so not allowing a freeway to become one on the basis of one or two bridges/interchanges is insanely hypocritical in my opinion.


iPhone
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

US 41

In my opinion I don't think every freeway in the US should be an interstate. If a freeway isn't quite interstate standards what is wrong with just signing / leaving it signed as a US or state highway? Like why can't NY 17 just be left alone?
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

froggie

Quote from: jakerootI'm not familiar with Kentucky ... do you mind very briefly listing the changes being made to the parkways to meet Interstate standards? I assume basic modifications such as shoulder and lane width changes, but are there others?

Quote from: RothmanI'm betting median width.

Median width (mitigatable with guardrail), but also interchange ramp geometry and ramp tapers.

Regarding the variance/disparity in design standards, keep in mind that the Interstate system is almost 60 years old and standards change over time.  For example, shoulders on bridges weren't mandated in all cases until the late 1960s.  And most state DOTs have been slow in upgrading facilities after standards change (hence why we STILL have many bridges that lack shoulders).  It's been noted time and again that most state DOTS (and ESPECIALLY the politicians that fund them) would rather build new roads than upgrade what they already have.

As for those who think standards could/should be relaxed, that may be possible for some aspects.  But safety features (which IMO include shoulders) should NOT be compromised on.

jeffandnicole

A lot of people always bring up NJ 42 and the AC Expressway for examples.  Other than the shorter than normal accel/decal lanes, Rt. 42 appears to be interstate quality.  And  the AC Expressway - there's really nothing on there that's not interstate quality.  Now, there's a difference between not-interstate quality that needs to be updated, and NJ's unwillingness to allow those two routes to be given interstate status.

NJ 55 falls under this also - nothing there would be an issue, from my view.  Heck, they could extend I-76 a bit to Rt. 55 just so Rt. 55 can be a 3 di connecting to a 2 di.   

And the NJ Turnpike from 1 - 6?  No reason here either it's not an interstate.

In the examples above, it may not be that they're not interstate quality, but the state doesn't want to give them the interstate status.  There's obviously other examples throughout the country that could quality to be an interstate today, or need minor upgrades to become an interstate, but the state could have their reasons why they wouldn't want to give those highways interstate status.

Rothman

There used to be more of an advantage to having more Interstate miles before MAP-21:  There was a fund source dedicated to interstates -- "IM" or Interstate Maintenance.  With MAP-21, that fund source along with others was lumped into the National Highway Performance Program which has the "broader" eligibility of all routes on the National Highway System.

As a side note, at least in NY, the lumping in of old HBRR funds (Highway-Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation) into NHPP created a lot of pain since a lot of HBRR could be used on the entire federal-aid system.  So, Congress' and FHWA's dirty little secret is that they focused more funding onto National Highway System facilities -- when (again, at least in NY) state DOTs may be finding that more severe needs are not on the NHS.

...

In terms of older highways being designated interstates under older, looser standards, the state-of-the-art has definitely matured over the last half century and more, so I can see why FHWA would want to be a little stricter nowadays with more safety data than ever to back up the specifications.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

SSOWorld

Interstates with narrow medians have been fitted with cable guards - a.k.a. "Wait-a-minute" cables.

Agreement on "not everything needs to be an Interstate." Politicians now often put designations on roads more as a commercial ploy these days (I-41 is a classic example of this) or as a pork grind (I-99) where neither one was required.  US-41 would have gotten the 70 mph designation even without the red-white-blue shield on it if WisDOT played their cards right.  What they DO need to consider is Control cities.  US-45 in Milwaukee had "Fond du Lac" as one - no Appleton.  I don't know about you, but what in Fond du Lac is commercially viable?  All they really need to to is re-route US-41... Done.
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

TEG24601

What about all the roads that have Interstate Shields that aren't up to Interstate Standards, like basically all the early designated ones.  With the remaining drawbridges, minimal interior shoulders (I'm looking at you, every city that expanded into the median then used K-Rails/Jersey Barriers to separate traffic), short exit ramps, minimal to no acceleration/deceleration lanes (Michigan), and driveways (Texas).  The standards are just that, standards, but there are so may ways to get waivers, it isn't even funny.  What really bothers me is the areas that don't apply for Interstate Designation, even though they could easily get a waiver, at least for part of the roadway, or are better constructed than many of the pioneer Interstates.


Example - I don't understand why CA 110 isn't I-110.  The roadway seems well build, and aside from a few deficient exits, and minimal shoulders, isn't much different that other Interstate designated highways in other cities.


Same goes for other 3-DIs that for all intents and purpose continue after meeting their parent Interstate, but change designation, like I-405 around Seattle.  Is there really a logical reason why I-405 doesn't continue to SR 509, or, since being twinned, it doesn't continue to SR 99 in the North?


I agree that not everything needs to be and Interstate, but some logic, would be useful.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Zeffy on June 20, 2015, 05:46:32 PM
Your thoughts?

I am not in favor.  We have plenty of substandard freeways in the U.S. in places like Pennsylvania and New York City already, and drivers have a right to expect a freeway designed to Interstate standards if they see that shield.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2015, 08:48:37 AM
And the NJ Turnpike from 1 - 6?  No reason here either it's not an interstate.

As I have suggested elsewhere, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (and probably NJDOT) need to let go of that silly "secret" N.J. 700 and ask the federal government for approval to designate the Turnpike from Interchanges 1 to 6 as I-895. 

Several other states have 3di designations on major toll roads, including Pennsylvania (I-276), Illinois (I-294) and Kansas (I-470 and I-335).
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

J N Winkler

#23
Quote from: Rothman on June 21, 2015, 08:57:00 AMThere used to be more of an advantage to having more Interstate miles before MAP-21:  There was a fund source dedicated to interstates -- "IM" or Interstate Maintenance.  With MAP-21, that fund source along with others was lumped into the National Highway Performance Program which has the "broader" eligibility of all routes on the National Highway System.

I was under the impression that the IM program still existed (with the same funding split as the Interstate Construction program--90% federal, 10% state), but only Interstates built prior to 2003 qualify, so that there is no longer an incentive to sign Interstate-compatible freeways as Interstates simply to maintain IM eligibility for them.

Edit:  Having looked into some of FHWA's bumf on MAP-21, I see that the phaseout of IM (as well as the overall consolidation of funding programs) passed me by, though I still occasionally see construction contracts advertised with federal-aid project designations that indicate IM funding.  I suspect funding for these projects was obligated before MAP-21 (signed in 2012) went into effect.

In regard to the issue of HBRR being folded into NHPP to the detriment of federal-aid facilities not on the NHS, it looks like there is some funding cover through STP, of course subject to the constraints on federal aid allocated to a state in total and by program category.  It has long been recognized that less-important rural roads show all the symptoms of investment starvation, such as low facility sufficiency ratings and high accident and fatality rates--I dimly remember reading a FHWA position paper years ago that sets out the case for spending more on them.  But with no change in the marginal fuel tax rates for 21 years, it becomes harder to justify not pulling the funding "dragnet" tighter around the fraction of the public road system in which the federal interest is strongest.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

SSOWorld

Toll roads as Interstates are a no-no in FHWA's view
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.